tv [untitled] February 22, 2012 4:00pm-4:30pm PST
broadcast center or their back operas -- back office operations. they have agreed to move the dates for piers 19, 19.5, and 23 to december 31, 2013. as we mentioned earlier, there is an mou between the general fund and the poor to that backfills support for lost rent revenue. the port can relet these areas sinner. what we have agreed is for the city and the port to take over the obligation to put out the notice to voters. that was something we had agreed as of mitigation measure under ceqa. it will provide the duration about safe boating habits and where the races will be. it is something the port is excited to embrace. we thought it was more properly placed with a public agency. we feel like this exchange
benefit both parties and we're happy to bring it forward. supervisor avalos: a question on that. what were some of the short term, what were the sites used for? what kind of tenants did we have in the spaces? >> the question was what did the poured in 10 for the use of some of the short-term -- supervisor avalos: my question was looking back before the discussion of the america's cup. who were the tenants in the short-term lease properties? i have another question after that. >> there were 87 tenants who have been impacted. i and these appear sheds, -- in
these pier sheds, theyw ere -- there were light industrial uses. they create light storage areas. we have a lot of people who were licensed to be involved in wholesale liquor activities. there were some tenants to or involved also in storage activity. >> looking forward now we have language that there is moving closer to the present. once the event has been finished and the sites are vacated. do we expect we will get people looking to rent space right away? is that -- how likely is that three months like a difference
-- will make a difference? >> this has to be one of the port's major focus areas over the next two years in addition to delivering a great event. it is getting ready for the day, whenever it is. to have these peers come back -- piers come back. whether or not the uses should shift from this fairly low rent warehouse types of uses to something else. that is going to be a consultation with the port commission and the board of supervisors. supervisor avalos: we have requested this bump up of the time we couldrelend these bases. you're saying it is a positive change. we will see a difference. >> yes. we think it is a direct general fund benefit to shorten the period of time the city is
subsidizing lost back rent to the port. we are looking forward to the discussion about what these piers can be after the event. >> if i could ask mo'niqonique moyer, how are we able to get tenants back in? we asked about the space needs back there. so if you could elaborate. >> thank you. right now what is happening in the bay area is there is an increasingly narrowing supply with -- of warehouse space on the peninsula that affects subsidy burlingame. there is a large demand of unmet space. if you have been to pier 80, you have seen the improvements they
have done at pier 80 and is our expectation with the improvements that will make to be in those piers we will release them quickly but at rates that are more market rate than what we are achieving today. we do think that will be some cache for having the america's cup events there. whether it or not that translates to real dollars, no one knows. the demand will be there for the space. supervisor avalos: -- supervisor campos:. to the extent that we're talking about recommendations that were made by the budget and legislative analyst, i am wondering whether or not mr. rose and his office are satisfied that the recommendations, whether it is this side or other items, actually address the concerns that were raised in the report. i'm wondering if there is a process by which we can hear
from the budget and legislative analyst's on the adequacy of the actions. through the chair. supervisor chu: we have hit upon an supervisor campos is going through the budget and the recommendation. what you see in the document is the budget analyst's recommendation, the status on how the negotiations have gone and what the mutually agreed upon action has been so far. i think we're going exactly through the budget analyst's comments. >> let me clarify. in the first place, some of the recommendations have not been addressed from our report. number two, we just received this document. a fast look at it shows us that some of this -- some of the response we believe may not be adequate or maybe somewhat misleading.
we cannot give the board an opinion as to whether or not these statements are being made in this document that is presented to the board has been fully responsive to our recommendations at this point. we can certainly, at your direction, do an analysis and report back to the board on it. having just received this document, we do have some questions about it. some of our recommendations have not been addressed. we would be happy to respond to the board if it what further information. supervisor chu: since we're going through the items 6 and the and making sure we're covering everything, why don't we go through the items that are on this document and if there are items that have been left out you can address those items. i would say that the high-value mr. rose's opinion is up to this committee to determine whether or not that is the response that
has been adequate. it is not to say the budget analyst should tell us, this addresses it and the concern is addressed. it is upon us to say here were the recommendations the budget analysts put forward. to the points that have been recommended, do they speak to those issues? that is a fair question. it is up to this committee to decide whether the responses are what we expect. >> i agree it is up to this committee but in deciding whether or not response their responses are adequate, i certainly think we would all benefit from hearing directly from mr. rose who is the one at his office has spent time looking at the fine print on this deal to see what their take is on the adequacy of these responses. not only on those things that were left out but the adequacy where responses were provided. i think it would inform our decision to hear that intimation
from the budget. supervisor chu: thank you for your comments. let's move on to item seven. >> develop a document with the acoc. we have talked about in the earlier part of the presentation but we want to get the feedback of the board and the comptroller's office to make sure that document achieves what it needs to in terms of certainty of fund-raising and our ability to match up budgets to the funds coming into the city. we proposed as this moves forward we provide you with a further draft of that document after getting your feedback and hopefully incorporate that to your satisfaction. supervisor chu: thank you. depending on when it is we have the mou language completed, to amend the resolution, would we -- with like to take action on
that today. >> if the desire is to have the board conduct the hearing on the amendments next tuesday, it would be important to act on the amendments and make them today so that is what is sorted out. supervisor chu: thank you. i see no questions from the committee. let's move on. >> item 8 is not for the budget analyst report. it was the topic of discussion during public comment. the talk about the neighborhood engagement strategy. the arts organizations, youth organizations, small businesses, neighborhood organizations. we drafted a memo that describes the progress we made to date. that is available and we provided it to you. we're looking forward to discussing at -- discussing that.
i wanted to emphasize our overall strategy. this was finding a way to reach out to every neighborhood in the city and bring them into this event and as high-profile international opportunity to bring visitors to the neighborhood and the neighborhood to the visitors. the london olympics pioneered a program called inspire which looks at the groups that are inspired to do something in conjunction with the games. be part of that process and we want to be part of that open source, bringing in people all -- from different backgrounds who may not have anything to do with sailing but look at the excitement of the event as an opportunity. our project has been designed around that effort. we think it is necessary to deliver on the economic projections that people have been talking about because we want people to spend their time and money in the city's neighborhoods when they're not watching the races. happy to get your feedback on that as we move forward. we are excited about that to
move ahead and make the san francisco event. president chiu: i would love to get a copy of that memo. we have heard not just from neighborhoods but from the arts and nightlife and cultural communities how important this is. this is not necessarily -- it is an ask. it is not difficult this continue in a significant way to lay out what the plans are. this is a huge economic as well as cultural and community opportunity that we're not taking advantage of. thus far, i do not think there has been the type of engagement with those communities that we need. i want to make that comment and appreciate the work you're doing. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor. >> item 9. we have negotiated a revision of the dda that would provide for
the 1% fee on the third and subsequent interest of condominiums. president chiu:u. supervisor avalos: that was from last week. >> this was not in the document last week. it was requested by the budget analysts. we have added this provision. the budget analyst talked about after the initial sale. it is different from that recommendation. >> i think there was a discussion last week about the third sale and that is where i draw the conclusion that is where things already said. and i would like to go back to the budget analyst recommendation. it is possible to go back to the subsequent to the first sale.
there was some direction from the committee around the valve or the first sale and that is something we as a city, i think is reasonable to expect that. that is a recommendation that to me was when i was hoping the committee would take up at the bottom line. supervisor chu: thank you. just be clear, the language in the previous dda did not include a transfer but the budget analyst did recommend that. we did have a conversation around wanting to see some level of participation. what i understand is it was come back out. >> this was the dda -- it did not have that provision. we worked hard with our partners to negotiate. they have provided this
compromise and this is what is in the proposal before you. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor campos. supervisor avaloscampos: what t board of supervisors approved in december 2010 and i think it is specifically section 7.3 hi, how the 1% sale of any condominium constructed on seawall lot 30 with the exception of the first sale. where understanding is it would mean the second sale. mike understanding is that what the board approved in december 2010 included the language. i wanted to confirm? from the budget and legislative analyst. >> that is correct.
on page 4 of our report in the summary, we stated reinstate the provisions included in the foot -- host and venue previously approved by the board of supervisors on december 14, 2010. to require a transfer fee equal to the resale price after initial sale constructed on seawall lot 50. and the next item which has not been addressed in this response as i understand it. in response to have before you which was previously approved by the board of supervisors on december 10. poor participation of 15% of the net proceeds of its transport or sublease of more than 55% of the event authority or interest in long-term leases from the event authority or the other parties excluding the first transfer. that letter has been silent in
this document. >> on that i was going to get to that point. mike understanding is that this subsection 2i of what the board approved. the question to the chair for staff is simply one not go back to what the board of supervisors approved in december 2010 and include the 1% upon the second sale? the board has been clear at the outset on where we are so what is wrong with going back to that original language? >> simply put it is what you heard earlier. december 14, there was a metula agreement. what was approved was will forward without their approval. we are 15 months into this effort. we have spent a lot of time and energy to get here. it is appropriate to move forward. we worked hard to compromise on a number of these issues.
we appreciate the work of the event authority and this is how far we got. >> it is up to this committee to decide what is appropriate. from a business standpoint i do not see why we would prove -- deprived the taxpayers of that benefit. my understanding is that there are a number of projects where the port has had that kind of arrangement. maybe with some differences. i do not see why we would not provide that provision in the resolution to make it clear that we are simply -- we simply want to get the benefit of the bargain that we approved in december of 2010. >> i think what you're saying is a key point. each of these individual transactions as we found out is a complex animal. you have to work through the costs and liabilities and come to an agreement.
we have done that in a lot of ways. part of the challenge is exacting these participation rights could reduce the value of the assets. so we have a fairly intricately complex agreement. we appreciate the work of the event authority of getting as here. >> it is an entirely -- an agreement. it is not what the ideal of what the recommended. i would be happy -- be happier if it were for sale. there was a reason why we did that. back in 2010. i still have not heard an explanation as to why we need to change that at this point. i would simply submit that i think we need to go back to that original language that this board approved.
supervisor chu: thank you for your comments. we have gone through all the difference items here and we wanted to have the budget analyst respond to any items that were perhaps missing from the list. if i can ask mr. rose to speak to that. >> i have referenced the one item. mr. campbell will speak to any additional. supervisor chu: ok. white -- why don't i give you some time to do that. i wanted to revisit the issue about the work for salomon. this is an area where supervisor avalos has brought this area of. i would like to hear from jennifer or laura lester on this item.
>> get afternoon. i am a consultant to the event authority. -- good afternoon. i believe that what probably will be most useful to you is if i review some of the modifications that have been made to the workforce plan since we last prevented -- presented to you on february 1. what we did represent changes we made to be responsive to the concerns and issues that you raised, particularly with regard to their being very clear
consequences if contractors and businesses did not really fully participate and did not perform according to the workforce development plan. so the first thing i need to do is give you a new version. however, i have to tell you that as of this afternoon, there is one change in this version. supervisor kim, i apologize. i have four copies by new york office has a coffee -- i know your office has a copy. >> i appreciate your work on this. we have had a couple of hearings on this very topic since october. the last we had there was a discussion about the appearance of what the consequences would
be meted out in the past. the consequences kicked in when there were certain steps that were not followed. in hiring people. i believe the movement has been toward the request from members of the community and labor organizations was that the consequences would be on the actual outcomes. meeting particular goals. i am curious to see how things move from there. thank you. >> i should say also, thank you very much to supervisor natalee's and his office because -- supervisor avalos and his office because they have spent time on this. if you turn to page 20 in that particular version, one of the things we needed to do was to make a very clear statement that event authority will contractually require its
contractors to achieve 20% of all construction hours going to san francisco residents, again with 10% of the hours going to economically disadvantaged residents, the 50% of the all printers hours going to san francisco residents and 25% of these hours going to disadvantaged apprentices who are san francisco residents. we indeed made it clear -- made clear statement that this is contractually required. this is on a trade by trade basis. the other thing we did that i should say trade by trade bases accept the trades that are exempt and this is exempt according to oewd, what is posted on their website. it applies to other trades. >> could you say which trades
would be exempt? >> i could not name all them. one of them would be marine pile drivers. >> that is the trade that is always discussed. >> there are other trades. i apologize. i do not have the list of exempt trade with me. we could send that to you. >> thank you. >> and page were -- on page 21, we did -- we strengthened the language around contribution to the workforce pipeline. what the plan is proposing is a contractor for every trade must meet 20%. if at some point they feel, and -- in looking at their production -- projections, they say they will all sort -- fall short, they must meet with oewd
and they have the option with negotiating with oewd a pipline-pipeline and that could take the form of sponsoring an apprenticeship in one of the construction trades in which residents are underrepresented, it could -- and that means up to sponsorship is not a big item. it would sponsor up to about $5,000 because there are fees associated with the premise and there are work hours that are associated with production. -- apprenticeships. they could sponsor a san francisco resident participant in city build academy. making a contribution, $5,000, or they could provide a job for a san francisco resident on a project, and other projects they have and with the idea of
contributing up to $5,000 in salary or what have you. if the contractor does not meet the 20% goal, does not meet with oewd to negotiate one of these off ramps, this is when the penalties kick in. the penalties are stated on page 22. the only thing that is different here is that rather than at $10,000 portrait penalty, event authority is agreeing to a $20,000 per trade penalty. again, like the local hire construction policy that is the cities, oewd has the authority in order to enforce the agreement and to assess the penalty. the other consequences that are included --
>> on page 22 where it is highlighted in yellow here, it's as 10,000. you're saying it is 20,000. >> we will send you a corrected copy tomorrow. tomorrow morning or tonight. tomorrow morning, definitely. the other areas in which the consequences were strengthened and spelled out much more clearly are in the hiring for installers or temporary structures trade you can see that -- or temporary structures. you can see that on page 16. that is something that event authority is extending, the 20% goal for hiring to the construction related or the temporary structures, the direction of the tents and so forth. if and this is being done by
production companies and so forth. those contracts, if they do not meet this goal and they do not do the things they're supposed to do, there is a penalty. oewd has the authority to enforce and assessed a penalty of $5,000. this is something that is unusual and does not currently happen in san francisco. another strengthening of the consequences has to do with the local business enterprise. this is both for participation or utilization. this is for construction contractors and it also applies to non-construction contractors. on page 24 in the agreement, this authorizes the human rights commission, which has been